https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369303 The penalty imposition under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was challenged in the appeal. The Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty. It was observed that the appellant had maintained a sufficient CENVAT account balance, accurately reported credit details, and rectified the irregular credit before any show cause notice was issued. The absence of specific allegations of fraud or collusion, coupled with the timely correction of the credit, led to the conclusion that penalty imposition was unjustified, aligning with the judgment of the Bombay High Court. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369303 The penalty imposition under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was challenged in the appeal. The Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty. It was observed that the appellant had maintained a sufficient CENVAT account balance, accurately reported credit details, and rectified the irregular credit before any show cause notice was issued. The absence of specific allegations of fraud or collusion, coupled with the timely correction of the credit, led to the conclusion that penalty imposition was unjustified, aligning with the judgment of the Bombay High Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369303